Vance v. Ball State
University
ISSUE: Scope of the "supervisor" liability rule under
Title VII.

Oral argument November 26, 2012

Vance sued the employer for violation of Title VII
alleging hostile work environment and retaliation among other claims. The trial
court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment. The 7th Circuit
affirmed. The 7th Circuit concluded that the employer conducted investigations
of Vance's complaints demonstrating that there was no basis for employer
liability on her hostile work environment claim. As for conduct allegedly
committed by a "supervisor," the 7th Circuit said,
"We have not joined other
circuits in holding that the authority to direct an employee’s daily
activities establishes supervisory status under Title VII."

In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton,
524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524
U.S. 742 (1998), this Court held that under Title VII, an employer is
vicariously liable for severe or pervasive workplace harassment by a
supervisor of the victim. If the harasser was the victim’s co-employee,
however, the employer is not liable absent proof of negligence. In the
decision below, the Seventh Circuit held that actionable harassment by a
person whom the employer deemed a “supervisor” and who had the authority
to direct and oversee the victim’s daily work could not give rise to
vicarious liability because the harasser did not also have the power to take
formal employment actions against her.

The question presented is:

Whether,
as the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held, the Faragher and Ellerth
“supervisor” liability rule (i) applies to harassment by those whom the
employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim’s daily
work, or, as the First, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits have held (ii) is limited
to those harassers who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote,
transfer, or discipline” their victim.